The ASE Research Guide is almost ready to print. That being so, I have been reflecting on what counts as research, and have attached the recent OfSTED Annual Report on what they call initial teacher training, and I call Initial Teacher Education. I am clear that this does not count as research for many reasons. The first is that it is not ethical in the sense that I understand it. Participants have to take part according to law, and, indeed, informed consent is not requested. There is no guarantee of anonymity, and the reports are not available for rigorous external scrutiny before publication. There are no research questions, and I have been unable to see in any OfSTED report a systematic analysis of previous literature. Their data collection methods are made clear but the data provided is kept secret in individual reports. The data collection process is not subject to rigorous external scrutiny. The data analysis is rudimentary (charts of final judgments into four categories) and there is no evidence of validation of this evidence. Finally, there are no new knowledge claims. Nevertheless, OfSTED have a tremendous impact on policy and practice, largely arising from its statutory base. It has an authority that relates to a legal and accountability framework, rather than one that relates to the traditional reliability, systematic and validity warrants. Colleagues may find that OfSTED is a suitable comparison when discussing what counts as research. Even though OfSTED work is not research, in my view, it is remarkable to note that HEI ITE comes out so well above the significant 18% of school-based ITE. The Teach First evaluation does note the high input of HEI input and visits by external colleagues. I am sure many of my HEI colleagues would be over the moon to have such resources available. We should trumpet the outstanding success of HEI ITE, despite the government cut backs in target numbers in comparison to its increases in school-based provision.
What counts as research?
OfSTEd report 10-11 Initial Teacher Education
The ASE Research Guide is almost ready to print. That being so, I have been reflecting on what counts as research, and have attached the recent OfSTED Annual Report on what they call initial teacher training, and I call Initial Teacher Education. I am clear that this does not count as research for many reasons. The first is that it is not ethical in the sense that I understand it. Participants have to take part according to law, and, indeed, informed consent is not requested. There is no guarantee of anonymity, and the reports are not available for rigorous external scrutiny before publication. There are no research questions, and I have been unable to see in any OfSTED report a systematic analysis of previous literature. Their data collection methods are made clear but the data provided is kept secret in individual reports. The data collection process is not subject to rigorous external scrutiny. The data analysis is rudimentary (charts of final judgments into four categories) and there is no evidence of validation of this evidence. Finally, there are no new knowledge claims. Nevertheless, OfSTED have a tremendous impact on policy and practice, largely arising from its statutory base. It has an authority that relates to a legal and accountability framework, rather than one that relates to the traditional reliability, systematic and validity warrants. Colleagues may find that OfSTED is a suitable comparison when discussing what counts as research. Even though OfSTED work is not research, in my view, it is remarkable to note that HEI ITE comes out so well above the significant 18% of school-based ITE. The Teach First evaluation does note the high input of HEI input and visits by external colleagues. I am sure many of my HEI colleagues would be over the moon to have such resources available. We should trumpet the outstanding success of HEI ITE, despite the government cut backs in target numbers in comparison to its increases in school-based provision.